The following description includes information that may be useful in understanding the present invention. It is not an admission that any of the information provided herein is prior art or relevant to the presently claimed invention, or that any publication specifically or implicitly referenced is prior art.
The amount of content that is distributed over networks to electronic devices continues to grow at an alarming rate as driven by content consumers seeking to satisfy their insatiable need for content. Unfortunately, content consumers are not always entitled to the content they desire. Further, content providers often lack control over the distribution of the content in a manner that ensures the provider's rights are protected. The conflict between content demand and content rights results in frustration of the consumers and the providers. What is needed is an infrastructure that allows content to be ever-present while only allowing the content to be distributed to individuals upon valid authentication. Interestingly, it has yet to be appreciated that everyday objects, or objects relative to each other, can be used as a key to activate content in a controlled manner that protects rights of the content providers and satisfies consumer demand for immediate gratification of content. Even further, it has yet to be appreciated that everyday objects can be used to gain access to different levels of content, which could give rise to more dynamic object interactions.
Some effort has been directed to linking brands to social forms of television. For example, Second Screen Networks™ (see URL www.secondscreen.com) allows content providers to send advertisements to a user's second screen (e.g., a cell phone) when corresponding content is presented on television. However, such an approach fails to address a consumer's demand for content at any point in time away from a television. Further, the Second Screen approach requires the consumer to opt into the system rather than offer access to a pervasive layer of ever present content.
Additional effort has been directed toward using biometric recognition techniques as a basis for establishing a person's identity as part of authentication systems. For example, European patent application specification EP 2 348 458 to Murakami et al. titled “Biometric Authentication System”, filed Sep. 3, 2010, describes using biometric features to determine user identify based on biometric authentication. In addition, U.S. patent application publication 2011/0311112 to Matsuyama et al. titled “Identification Device, Identification Method, and Storage Medium”, filed Jun. 16, 2011, discloses identifying a person based on feature data extracted from image frames of the person's face. When specific feature data in subsequent frames has not been identified, the feature data is associated with the face area of the subsequent frames. Still, further U.S. Pat. No. 8,194,938 to Wechsler et al. titled “Face Authentication Using Recognition-by-Parts, Boosting, and Transduction”, filed Jun. 1, 2010, describes authenticating a person's face through comparing captured image “patches” of the person's face to known patches where the patches can be extracted via SIFT or Gabor wavelets. Interestingly, each of the disclosed techniques requires a priori understanding of the biometric features, and is not suited for use with respect to unrestricted classes of objects.
Still, there are techniques available that offer at least a minimal path forward with respect to identifying or recognizing different classes of objects beyond just identifying a priori known classes of biometric features. For example, Japanese patent abstract for JP4164737 to Yokono titled “Object Recognition Device, Object Recognition Method, and Robot Equipment” (en), filed May 24, 2002, describes a learning system for robots where a robot learns to recognize an unknown object by placing the unknown object in a predetermined position relative to the imaging apparatus. Additionally, Japanese patent abstract for JP2005202653 to Matsugi et al. titled “Behavior Recognition Device and Method, Animal Object Recognition Device and Method, Equipment Control Device and Method, and Program” (en), filed Jan. 15, 2004, discusses recognizing objects based on primitive features. The primitive features can be observed over a period of time in order to generate an output behavior category.
Image based recognition includes co-owned U.S. Pat. No. 7,016,532, titled “Image Capture and Identification System and Process”, filed Sep. 5, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 7,680,324, titled “Use of Image-Derived Information as Search Criteria for Internet and other Search Engines”, filed Aug. 15, 2005; U.S. Pat. No. 7,565,008, titled “Data Capture and Identification System and Process”, filed Jan. 26, 2006; and U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,780, titled “Data Capture and Identification System and Process”, filed Mar. 22, 2004, all to Boncyk et al. Boncyk describes calculating salient parameters from image data of an object, then using the parameters to look up images of known objects in a database.
The above references, at least at some level, allow for recognizing or identifying objects, but fail to address authenticating a user or authorizing access to content according to different access levels based on different forms of data capture.
Other work has been directed toward using different data capture techniques to authenticate users. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,687,390 to Avni et al. titled “System for and Method of Web Signature Recognition System Based on Object Map”, filed Dec. 4, 2001, discloses validating an identify of a user based on how the user moves a pointing device on a computer to manipulate a cursor on a background graphic image.
Even further work has been directed toward authenticating physical objects a non-counterfeit. U.S. Pat. No. 5,974,150 to Kaish et al. titled “System and Method for Authentication of Goods”, filed Jul. 6, 1998, describes using position of a plurality of elements (e.g., diachronic fibers) disposed in an irregular pattern in a medium (e.g., paper) to authenticate products as being real rather than counterfeit. In a similar vein to Kaish, U.S. Pat. No. 7,995,196 to Fraser titled “Authentication Method and System”, filed Apr. 21, 2009, also attempts to provide techniques for authenticating objects based on a physical dispersion pattern of a set of elements (e.g., fibers) on a substrate. U.S. Pat. No. 8,245,922 to Gerigk et al. titled “Method and Device for Identifying and Authenticating Objects”, filed Nov. 19, 2010, also describes authenticating objects. Gerigk describes encoding an object with a code in a code region, which scatters electromagnetic radiation. Although these references provide utility with respect to authentication per se, they fail to appreciate that content could have different access levels.
One example of a technique to provide access to content includes U.S. Pat. No. 7,283,973 to Loghmani et al. titled “Multi-Modal Voice-Enable Content Access and Delivery System”, filed Oct. 29, 2002. Loghmani describe using speech recognition or DTMF tones to allow a user to access content over a phone. Further progress toward granting authorization to access content is describe in U.S. Pat. No. 7,380,280 to de Jong titled “Rights Locker for Digital Content Access Control”, filed Oct. 15, 2003. de Jong suggests using a token management system approach to restrict access to content. Even further, U.S. Pat. No. 7,953,079 to John et al. titled “Method and Apparatus to Control Access to Content”, filed Jun. 4, 2007, describes providing access to content based on a content access policy where the content is classified by type, possibly through the use of speech recognition, text recognition, or image processing tools. Yet further, U.S. patent application publication to Roberts et al. titled “Methods and Systems for Controlling Presentation of Media Content Based on User Interaction”, filed Jun. 30, 2009, discusses monitoring a user to determining if they are actively or passively interacting with media content. Content is presented to the user based on an interaction profiles.
The references discussed above thus far fail to provide for increased security through allowing a user to utilize an object as an authorization key. However, International application abstract WO 2012/085378 to Fondeur et al. titled “Method for Enabling Authentication of Identification, and Related Verification Systems”, filed Nov. 29, 2011, describes capturing an image of an object that is secretly selected by a person where the image of the object is used to register the person with a system. Fonduer merely contemplates using an image of an object for user registration and does not provide for using different modalities for authorization. Still, U.S. patent application 2011/0161232 to Brown titled “Virtualization of Authentication Token for Secure Applications”, filed Dec. 28, 2009, makes even further progress. Brown discusses collecting images of physical keys (e.g., car keys, house keys, etc.) or other physical tokens, as part of a “what-you-have” type of authentication. Brown describes that the images of the physical tokens can be combined with a voice print, a “what-you-are” authentication factor, to create a stronger multi-factor authentication protocol. Unfortunately, the Brown system simply merely describes use of multiple keys without regarding to relative arrangement.
All publications herein are incorporated by reference to the same extent as if each individual publication or patent application were specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference. Where a definition or use of a term in an incorporated reference is inconsistent or contrary to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the reference does not apply.
In some embodiments, the numbers expressing quantities of ingredients, properties such as concentration, reaction conditions, and so forth, used to describe and claim certain embodiments of the invention are to be understood as being modified in some instances by the term “about.” Accordingly, in some embodiments, the numerical parameters set forth in the written description and attached claims are approximations that can vary depending upon the desired properties sought to be obtained by a particular embodiment. In some embodiments, the numerical parameters should be construed in light of the number of reported significant digits and by applying ordinary rounding techniques. Notwithstanding that the numerical ranges and parameters setting forth the broad scope of some embodiments of the invention are approximations, the numerical values set forth in the specific examples are reported as precisely as practicable. The numerical values presented in some embodiments of the invention may contain certain errors necessarily resulting from the standard deviation found in their respective testing measurements.
As used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “the” includes plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
The recitation of ranges of values herein is merely intended to serve as a shorthand method of referring individually to each separate value falling within the range. Unless otherwise indicated herein, each individual value is incorporated into the specification as if it were individually recited herein. All methods described herein can be performed in any suitable order unless otherwise indicated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context. The use of any and all examples, or exemplary language (e.g. “such as”) provided with respect to certain embodiments herein is intended merely to better illuminate the invention and does not pose a limitation on the scope of the invention otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed as indicating any non-claimed element essential to the practice of the invention.
Groupings of alternative elements or embodiments of the invention disclosed herein are not to be construed as limitations. Each group member can be referred to and claimed individually or in any combination with other members of the group or other elements found herein. One or more members of a group can be included in, or deleted from, a group for reasons of convenience and/or patentability. When any such inclusion or deletion occurs, the specification is herein deemed to contain the group as modified thus fulfilling the written description of all Markush groups used in the appended claims.
A more ideal system would provide for authenticating or authorizing an entity to access various levels of content based on a juxtaposition of the objects relative to each other rather than merely existence of an object as a security token. Such an approach, as described below in the applicant's work, is advantageous by offering plausible deniability, fine grained access or control, or other access level features while allowing a content provider to retain control over their content.
Thus, there is still a need for content activation and authentication systems and methods.